Vol. 4 No. 1 THE HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY February 1995

OFFICE SAFETY AND E N V I R O N M E N , TA L PROTECTION

How Safe 'Is Safe?

crash of the stock market in Hong Kong, many people are reminded of the reality of perhaps not getting

gainful return on their investments. In a world of limited

resources and fierce competition, business management is constantly concerned about reaping sufficient benefit for what they spent. Similarly, with safety management, some of the frequently asked questions are: "How safe is safe?" "How much resource should be spent on safety?" "How do we measure the cost/benefit

of operating a certain safety program?" These are all important questions, but there are no simple answers.

To answer the question of "how safe is safe?", one needs to

consider a variety of elements. Production and safety are sometimes in conflict with each other. For example, one can spend much time designing a safe, but inefficient system. In other words a "very safe" system may simply be non-productive. This leads to the question of what level of safety should one aim for. Depending on the particular interest and value systems, one will get different answers from different groups. For example, most occupational exposure limits for toxic chemicals in Western countries have been ·

established to have a risk factor of less than 1 in 100,000 (i.e. only 1 out of 100,000 workers exposed to the toxic material at the level of the exposure limit will have a chance of developing ill effects.) Similarly the US Environmental Protection Agency has generally adopted a risk factor of 1 in 1,000,000 for the probability of ill effects as a result . of the public's exposure to environmental

pollutants. The picture may be very different in the third world and developing countries where the value of life may be very different. Perhaps a risk factor of 1 in 100 or 1 in 10 is considered acceptable

in some of these regions.

· In performing a cost-benefit analysis, safety professionals often rely on the calculation of cost of accidents, for lack of better measures. It has been pointed out that there are many "hidden" costs associated with accidents. These include injury, medical bills, pain and suffering, legal liability, loss of production, low employee morale, etc. Nevertheless, it is almost impossible to account for the numbers of a9cidents a particular safety program has helped to prevent. Hence, it is difficult to find a proper measuring stick to quantify the cost/benefit of operating a particular safety program. Even though hind sight is 20/20, it is difficult to claim benefit from something that has not happened. For example, effective fire services installations (FSls) at the Liaoling and Xin Jiang locations could have prevented the deaths of 220 and 320 people respectively. In this case, hind sight would tell us that the investment for such FSls would be extremely beneficial. On the

other hand, prior to the accidents, they might not have been considered cost 0 effective.

Without concrete parameters to measure cost/benefit, companies are often faced with answering the open-ended question of "how much resource shall we spend on safety?" While there are no straight forward answers, many companies have dedicated a fixed

percentage of their operational budget to safety. For example, some companies involved w_ith the new Hong Kong airport construction project use a figure of 2% as a bench mark, while a US national laboratory uses 5%.

Like many safety professionals in the field , the HKUST safety professionals do not have straight forward, simple answers to all

Vol.4 No.1 Safetywise

these questions. However, they have assembled a program which complies with applicable local regulations and internationally accepted practices. This program resembles those found at major universities in the West. It has been carefully organised to include the crucial elements while avoiding the controversial or largely political aspects as encountered in many US regulations. The cost of the current SEPO program is approximately 1 % of the

University's operational budget.

Safety is everyone's business. Management bears the responsibility of assuring safe operation. The HK UST program is a comprehensive one with a major emphasis on the element of PREVENTION along with the elements of administrative and engineering controls, and monitoring.

All pertinent safety regulations of the local ordinances have been adopted as part of the HKUST safety program. Some of the regulations may not be directly applicable to HKUST, or the University is categorically exempted as an educational institution. Under those circumstances, HKUST still observes the spirit of the applicable rules.

For certain specific safety and environmental protection areas, there are no applicable local ordinances, or the local requirements may be outdated and considered inadequate. In these cases, well established international standards are consulted to formulate University requirements. These may include standards promulgated by international organizations such as World Health Organization (WHO), British governmental or professional organizations, such as Health and Safety Executive (HSE), National Radiation Protection Board (NRPB); or American organizations, such as Occupational Safety and Health Adminstration (OSHA), National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA), American National Standards Institute (ANSI), National Institute of Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control

(CDC), etc.

For "grey areas" or "state-of-the-art" type operations involving significant hazards which are not covered by existing regulations or requirements, an approved Risk Management Scheme is · employed to develop specific practice on a case by case basis.

Combining this three-tier approach (i.e. i) local regulations, ii) international standards, iii) risk management scheme) with the consideration of available resources, a set of best feasible practice for campus safety at HKUST has been developed. Essential program elements include:

i) Design review to include hazard control considerations and to avoid potential problems.

ii) Operational review to evaluate work procedures and control measures.

iii) Training of personnel to disseminate proper knowledge of hazards and safety. This includes general training by SEPO on fire safety, office safety, laboratory safety etc. Job specific training is to be provided by supervisors.

iv) Periodic testing and certification of hazard control equipment to ensure proper functioning.

v) Personnel exposure monitoring for employees involved with high risk operations to assure adequate personnel protection.

vi) Inspections and audits to identify discrepancies and

deficiencies.

vii) Stop work in imminently dangerous situations to safeguard personnel and property.

Successful implementation of these elements depends on close co-operation of faculty, operational staff, students, and SEPO; as well as a proactive safety mentality shared by the whole campus community.

The HKUST safety and environmental protection program has been previously endorsed internally by the Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) Committee, the University Administration Council (UAC), and the Standing Committee of the Council; and externally by the University Grants Committee (UGC, formerly UPGC).

We hope this short article will help to explain the reasoning behind, and the main elements of, the HKUST safety program, and thus provide a common foundation for all employees and students to participate, and to strive for a safe campus that all of us can be proud of!

Safetywise February 1995

]ME S~fE UIE Of COMMON1 II.All P lfilITJElc Despite their size, availability, and the fact that most pen size laser pointers are powered by small, widely obtainable batteries, these pointers devices can cause eye damage if used improperly. The potential hazard is limited to looking directly into the laser beam with unprotected eyes. No hazard to the skin exists. Users of laser

pointers should never aim the pointer into the audience. When storing pointers, remove the poser source or unscrew the case/ housing enough to disable the power source.

Pen size laser pointers have become common presentation aids in recent years. These battery powered laser pointers that proouce a narrow, bright red beam are convenient to carry and use, relatively inexpensive, and readily available through mail-order .

catalogs and magazines.

Two types of these pointer devices are widely used in visual presentations- helium-neon (HeNe) and diode lasers. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) has defined the HeNe technology as a Class 2 laser, indicating that momentary or accidental viewing of the direct beam will not cause eye injury. A "CAUTION" label for these Class 2 devices is appropriate. On the other hand, ANSI has classified mist diode lasers as Class 3a lasers, indicating that direct viewing into the beam has the potential

to cause eye injury.

Class 3a lasers may be labeled "CAUTION" if they present the same risk as a Class 2 laser to the naked eye. However, if a Class 3a diode laser has a very small beam diameter (less than 7 millimeter (mm)) and has a power rating between 1 and 5 milliwatt (mW), it must have a "DANGER" label. It poses a risk if viewed at close distance where the beam is less than ?mm.

HeNe laser pointers have been available for several years. On a relatively low power level (typically less than 1.0 mW), they produce

. a bright red (632.8 nanometer (nm)) spot that is easily noticeable

on a bright screen. The more recently developed diode lasers are smaller in size and more rugged. The fact that they cost only about one-third as much as HeNe lasers makes them popular.

The diode lasers, however, produce a light that is darker (670 nm) than the HeNe lasers. To achieve the same effect as the HeNe lasers, the diode laser power levels are increased (typically to 5 mW). ANSI has assigned the safety classifications described above to these laser pointers in accordance with the level of danger to the eye.

Because of safety considerations, laser pointe_rs with a "CAUTION" label should be purchased as opposed to those with a "DANGER" label. In other words, Class 2. lasers are recommended. If a Class 3a laser is preferred, users should ensure that its use complies with . . ' all the safety requirements of ANSI Z136.1-1993, and Chapter II of HKUST Safety Manual as well as the Hong Kong Electrical and Mechanical Services Department laser code of practice. Users should also be aware of the manufacturer's safety precautions.

Note: On a related subject, users should not tamper with the laser­

emitting device in compact disc (CD) player, laser disc (LO) player, or CD-ROM drive. These laser sources emit beams of similar energy as laser pointers but in the infra-red range, which are

invisible to naked eyes, thus increasing the chance of accidental injury.

HeNe laser pointer (above) and diode laser pointer (below).

Extracted in part from SAFETY & HEAL TH NOTE Issue No. 94-10, Oct 1994, US Dept of Energy

Vol.4 No . Safetywise

General Fire Emergency Procedures If you discover a fire:

- Don't panic and remain calm.

- Activate the fire alarm by pressing the nearby breakglass point.

- Report the fire to the Security Control Centre by dialing ext. 8999 or using the security intercom points at most liftlobbies, giving the exact location

and natur~ of the fire.

- Alert other people by shouting "FIRE".

- If safe to do so, attempt to put out the fire by using the nearby fire fighting eqyipment. Do not use water or foam for putting out electrical fire.

- Do not take any personal risk. If the fire gets beyond your control, evacuate immediately by following the procedure under (b) below.

(b) If you hear the fire alarm and are informed of a fire:

- Do not panic and remain calm.

- Leave the area and proceed to the designated assembly point immediately via the nearest exit. Walk, don't run. Don't bring anything larger than a brief case.

- Be considerate, try to help those who have difficulties to leave the building such as the disabled and pregnant persons.

- DO NOT USE THE LIFTS.

Report to your Fire & Safety Officer at the assembly point as far as practicable.

~ Do not return to the building until permission is given by the Officer In-charge of the Fire Services Department.

(c) If you hear the fire alarm:

- Remain calm and check if there are any signs of

fire at the vicinity.

- If a fire is discovered or if you hear the P/A announcement asking you to evacuate, follow the procedure under (b) above.

- If no signs of a fire at the vicinity is found, stay alert and pay attention to the P/A announcement until the fire alarm is silenced. Evacuate in case the alarm has sounded for more that two minutes.

(d) You should be familiar with:

- The escape routes in your work area.

- The locations of the breakglass points, fire

extinguishers, and hosereels.

- The designated assembly points.

•• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••••• •• •• ••

Safetywise Februar 1995

DESIGNATED ASSEMBLY LOCATIONS

\

Phase II

ZoneD

ZoneJ Zone H

.___.,__.___,_.-­------... -----------

• .. ·-• •

1. Entrance Piazza - Mainly for the Phase I areas (LG1 and above) - Also for part of the Academic Concourse and Phase II areas

(Zone J & L).

2. Phase I LG7 Lawn - For lower levels of Library, Students Canteen, workshops and

offices at Phase I.

3. South End Lawn at 3/F Level - Mainly for Phase II Zone J, H and L areas.

4. South End Lawn at 2/F Level - Mainly for Phasse II Zone D and E areas at higher levels.

5. South End Open Ground at 1/F Level - Mainly for 1 IF level of Zone D and E andAcademic Concourse

areas.

Vol.4 No.1 Safetywise

Electrophoresis, a technique which separates molecules based on their electrical charge, is frequently used in today's laboratories. The increasing popularity of electrophoresis brings up issues of electrical safety and gel disposal.

One common feature of many medical research labs is electrophoresis equipment. In any type of electrophoresis - disc, gel, isoenzyme or lipoprotein - there is movement of particles in an electric field toward one or the other electric pole, cathode or anode.

It is commonly believed that there is little hazard in electrophoresis

apparatus use except when operating at high voltages required for procedures such as DNA sequencing. However, even agarose gel electrophoresis operating at 100 volts can cause a lethal shock at a current of 25 milliamps. Precautions to prevent electrical shock and using electrophoresis apparatus safely include:

- Turn the power off before connecting the electrical leads. - Connect one lead at a time using one hand only. - Insure that your hands are dry while connecting the leads. - Keep the apparatus away from sinks or other water sources. - Turn off power before opening lid or reaching inside chamber. - Don't override safety devices.

Don't run electrophoresis equipment unattended.

A discussion of electrophoresis would not be complete without

mentioning the gels and the chemical hazards they can carry.

Many researchers believe the gels are harmless and, while agar itself may be, the additives used are often hazardous. For example, ethidium bromide, commonly used to visualize nucleic acid, is a mutagen and should be handled with caution, even when mixed

in the gel. In addition, various catalysts, denaturants, stains and

solubilizing agents contain a variety of chemicals, including formamide, phenol and acrylamide. This can result in unforeseen results. For example, a Canadian university analyzed

Typical electrophoresis equipment agarose gels and found heavy

metals, even though no metals or metal-containing reagents were

used in the gel preparation. Presumably, the metals leached from the electrical contacts while the electrophoresis happened.

Acrylamide also poses significant hazards. It is a potent nerve toxin in its unpolymerized state, although it is less toxic when polymerized. In making gels, however, the polymerization process is never fully

complete, and small amounts of acrylamide monomer are always present.

For these reasons, researchers should handle gels with caution, wearing gloves and washing their hands often. Also, these materials should be disposed of as hazardous waste. Collect your gels in a

leakproof container and attach a hazardous waste tag to it when it. is full. Risk Management will help you send this waste to its proper disposal site.

In HKUST, electrophoresis gei with potential hazards is collected at laboratories as hazardous waste by SEPO. Users should put such

gel in double layer of plastic bags inside a disposable box with clear indication of the content. SEPO staff will affix proper hazardous waste labels to the containers and remove the waste during our weekly waste collection run. If you need further information please contact the Head of SEPO Environmental Section, Dr Pete Swearengen, at 6510; or Mr Edmond Cheng at 6456.

Information partially extracted from University of Vermont 'Safety Notes'. Winter 1993.

t

L------··-' Safetywise February 1995

FATAL HYDROFLUORIC ACID EXPOSURE A splash of hydrofluoric acid (HF) recently killed a lab · employee in Australia. The victim accidentally splashed about 100 ml of a 70% solution of HF on his leg. The victim apparently jumped into a swimming pool in a vain bid to neutralize the acid. His leg was amputated but he suffered systemic poisoning and subsequently died. HF in contact with only 2% of the body may be fatal.

According to a health expert, the victim would have

had little chance of surviving a hydrofluoric acid spill as big as the one that killed him1 even if every precautionary measure had been taken. Dermal exposure to dilute solutions of.HF may not cause pain or other noticeable

· ·. symptoms until hours later due to its bone-seeking

property.

HF is used at HKUST in a number of laboratories. Persons handling HF need to be fully trained in the hazardous properties and proper protective measures such as employing adequate engineering controls, suitable personal protective equipment, and proper handling procedures. In the event of accidental spills and/or exposure, personnel should be conversant in the required emergency response procedures including appropriate first aid.

First aid includes flushing the affected with copious amounts of cold water followed by application of calcium gluconate cream and extremely prompt medical attention.

For further information contact SEPO @ x6509.

WE HAVE MOVED!"""""""'"""""""'"""""""'"""""""'~

The SEPO office has recently been relocated. We now

occupy Room 2005-2007 on the second floor of the semi­circular block facing the main entrance. You can take the staircase next to Lift 4 (near the campus Park'n Shop).

All our telephone numbers, including the fax line, and e­mail addresses remain the same. You are always welcome to visit us at our new office!

HOW TO CONTACT SEPO

Ext E-mail

SEPO General Enquiry 6412 Occupational Hygienist Mr. Al Clancy 6509 EOCLANCY Environmental Engineer Dr .. Pete Swearengen 6510 EOPETE Safety Engineer Mr.TS Li 6511 EOTSLI Health Physicist Dr. Paul Chan 6535 EOMWCHAN

_Feel free to call any of us or send us an E-mail if you have specific safety

or environmental related questions.

SAFETYWISE Safetywise is published by the Safety and Environmental Protection Office and printed by Educational Technology Centre.

The Hong Kong University of Science of Technology.

Printed on recycled paper.

Comments from all staff and students are welcome. Please send to e-mail ·

address EOKWAN.

Vo Safetywise

It is that time of the year again when humidity' drops to fire hazardous levels. The fire safety information in this issue is a timely reminder of fire hazards at work place, at home, and outdoor areas. We encourage you to take out, or copy, the centre page for posting in your office to supplement fire evacuation instructions of your unit.

We also focused on safety issues concerning two pieces of common equipment, one for research and the other for teaching. It is easy for us to forget the latent hazards of equipment we use so often and so routinely that the operations become mundane. Consequently, we may fail to take proper precautions in "routine" activities, such as "running gel", or using laser pointers in visual

presentations.

It may not occur to most of us that safety and environmental protection also has a philosophical side to it, and, for that matter, quite an intriguing one. The baseline is we are living in a world of limited resources, and taking various forms of risks is an inevitable fact of life, so where should we "draw the line", so to say, for safety and environmental protection?

"How safe is safe?" is a frequently debated question in developed countries. Most of the time it would be a scrimmage among the government, the

industries, and public interest groups. The local scenario, however, is quite different. Nowadays, it seems everyone agrees that local legislation on environmental health and safety is lagging way behind as compared to the staggering economic growth which took place in Hong Kong in the last several decades. Most agree that we need to move swiftly, if not full-speed, ahead in those areas. The question of "where to stop" could not be farther away in most people's mind.

In basic economic terms, the foreseeable marginal return for improving safety and environmental protection in the territory is currently so high that, no one is really worrying about that "magic cross" of the cost and return curves, beyond which the marginal benefit of further investment may not justify

the cost. Regardless, that particular point is definitely out there somewhere.

We are proud to say that at HKUST, we have assembled a safety and environmental protection

progran:i for a tertiary educational institute which can match up to international standards, and is in fact in line with current practice at major universities in the West. Standards adopted for many elements of the program exceed the minimal current local requirements which in many cases are not

applicable to university operations. On the other hand, it is likely that HKUST will also be one of the first in the territory to face this challenging task of balancing cost and benefits of safety, which, by its very nature, is somewhat intangible. The article "How Safe is Safe?" presents the rationale behind the HKUST safety and environmental program, which we think is justifiable, qnd in fact sets an example for the whole territory.

'

i

I